What's the deal?

[Kermit]

There are alot of guys that can't say enough about their Sigs, HK's, 1911's, and Glocks. But Beretta 92fs's seem to be the red headed step child of the bunch. Sure, you put HOT loads through they break, but so do Glocks (can you say kaboom? ), but I don't think they signed any agreements with anyone to put them on anyone's ****list. So, why such a bad rep? My Centurion has been absolutely reliable & crazy accurate and I suspect the stainless fullsize I just bought will be too.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's Kermit,

Nobody ever said that the Beretta 92F's, 92FS,
and their counterpart the Centurion weren't accurate, or reliable for that matter. I think
the general concensus will tell you that they
are overly large for a CCW weapon; designed
more so as a military combat pistol, to be
carried in a holster. Most of our viewing public
prefer a pistol that is both smaller and flatter
than the Beretta series; ie: Sig's, Browning's,
Glock's, and H&K's to some extent, not to mention
the 1911's.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.

 

[alamo]

I agree with Ala Dan, I had a Centurian and really liked it, 100% reliable. I shot a friend's Glock 19 and REALLY liked it. I got to thinking about my larger, thicker and heavier Beretta and decided to trade it in for the Glock 19.

 

[Clayton]

Reliabilty and accuracy aren't the problems with the Beretta 92FS/M9, durability is.
A Glock or Sig will go far longer without parts replacement.

 

[Kermit]

re: durability...I've got more than 5k rounds through my Centurion and have had no problems. I shoot factory and reloads out of it w/o problems. I know the Glock warranty is voided if I shoot reloads from it. At what point will I notice the difference in durability between my Centurion and my G17?

 

[Shake]

Clayton

A Glock or Sig will go far longer without parts replacement.

I agree with you 100% on the GLOCK, but the SIGs for the most part have aluminum frames as do the Berettas. Does SIG use better aluminum?

I know there seems to be concern about locking block failure, but when was the last time someone posted to this BB about having a locking block fail on them?

Kermit,

I don't think they signed any agreements with anyone to put them on anyone's ****list. So, why such a bad rep?

I don't know why they get a bad rap either (one reason is a lot of hogwash that gets passed around on the net--I'm sure you'll hear a lot of that on this thread).

As far as agreements, Beretta has always been an ardent supporter of RKBA. The seem to support shooters as much as any other manufacturer. I have read several "position" articles published by Beretta regarding RKBA, "smart gun" technology, etc.

Shake

 

[blades67]

I think one of the reasons is marketing. Glock, SIGArms and HK have larger mass marketing campains for their handguns than Beretta.

 

[sundance43.5]

Blades,

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one Beretta's advertisement. I would wager that they definitely advertise more than HK, and possibly Sig. The bulk of their ads go to the 9000 and 8000 series pistols, after all, you don't really need to advertise the 92 and 96 series.

I think Beretta's bad rap comes from fools who spread the I heard from a friend's friend, who knew a guy, that worked for a guy, that was a personal trainer to a guy that knew a guy who had a Beretta. Then you've got the stories of the M9's failure in the military, which are seriously exaggerated and distorted, and based on several conflicting opinions.

I think Beretta definitely has the name. I know when I say Beretta to people, their ears perk up. Thanks to the military and Lethal Weapon, their firearms are very famous, perhaps only rivaled by Glock, as far as name recognition.

Chris

 

[Marko Kloos]

Beretta definitely has the name recognition thing going for it as the oldest firearms company in the world. Just about everybody has heard of Beretta, even if they don't know any other handgun brand. They've been making guns since the main ignition mechanism for firearms of the day was a smoldering piece of rope.

 

[Clayton]

I just know personally what I witnessed in the military, concerning the aforementioned locking block failures. Lot's of guys that used and worked on M9's have posted on this here and on the other forums.

Locking blocks and slides are regularly replaced at an alarming rate by armorers in the military. This is an absolute fact.

The Sig 226, which is issued to Naval Special Warfare units, actually remains one of the most durable and cost effective weapons in the inventory.

It's all too comical that the Army decided to choose the Beretta 92F over the Sig 226, and then turned around and issued the Sig 228 to police units. That has got be one of the biggest boondoggles in the history of weapons procurement.

Keep in mind that Military ball ammo is hotter than your standard, off the shelf FMJ's.

If you stay away from +P ammo, and don't mind inspecting/replacing parts at a higher rate than with any other comparible service weapon, then get a Beretta. They are reliable, and have such a lousy DA trigger that you are almost assured not to have a dreaded "accidental(negligent) discharge". Not to mention, you can always use the big heavy thing as a boat anchor. The SEALs don't know what they're missing .

 

[Shake]

Here we go again. . .

Clayton

I just know personally what I witnessed in the military, concerning the aforementioned locking block failures.

What did you witness in the military?

Locking blocks and slides are regularly replaced at an alarming rate by armorers in the military. This is an absolute fact.

What is an alarming rate? You must have some kind of numbers if you call it alarming. Please tell us what those alarming numbers are and where you get the information from. If it is an absolute fact, there will be documentation.

If you stay away from +P ammo, and don't mind inspecting/replacing parts at a higher rate than with any other comparible service weapon, then get a Beretta.

There was a thread here not too long ago (several actually) where many Beretta owners posted their round counts on their personally owned Beretta 92s. The average round count was somewhere in the neighborhood of 7,000 (including a couple of new guns which had only been fired 200-300 rounds). Several of the posters mentioned that their Berettas had over 15,000 rounds (one over 70,000) with no parts breakage whatsoever. None mentioned any parts breakage. One poster mentioned being a military armorer and stated "As a military armorer, I can honestly tell you the guns are tough, reliable, and withstand a great deal of abuse." The Beretta-L-list armorers notes (arguably a reliable source) says this regarding locking blocks:

The Army's testing shows that the locking block on an M9 will function for 17,000 to 22,000 rounds of NATO-specification (+p or +p+) ammunition before needing replacement.

Now nobody here is going to claim that the Beretta is the most durable of all firearms, but if you told me that my Beretta will be nearly 100% reliable (the US Army rates the M9 good for an average of 21,000 rounds between failures) for 17,000 to 22,000 rounds of +P+ and then need a $50 drop in part to be good for another 17,000 to 22,000 rounds, I'd feel pretty good. I would bet my life on the fact that there hasn't been a soldier in existence that has needed to shoot 17,000 rounds of ammo through a handgun while in combat.

Not to mention, you can always use the big heavy thing as a boat anchor.

Uhh. . . how do I put this. . . Have you compared the weight of the SIG 226 vs the Beretta 92? Beretta runs 34.4 ounces, the SIG 226 31.7 for a grand total difference of 2.7 ounces. Yet, according to you the Beretta is a boat anchor. What does that make the SIG? Another very slightly lighter boat anchor?

Now thats comical.

Did you mention what branch of the military you served in and for how long? I'd be interested in hearing just how many M9 breakages you personally witnessed (locking block or slides).

Shake

 

[Clayton]

Shake, by all means don't take my words for facts, search around and for every person who loves the Beretta you'll discover twenty that hate it.

I found it comical that the Army went looking for a sidearm that was lighter than the 1911A1, and ended up adopting the heaviest, chunkiest pistol in the trials. And this had NOTHING to do with that sub base in Italy . Nope, politics played no part in choosing the Beretta 92F over the Sig 226 .

Again, the issue with the M9 isn't reliability, it's durability, and thus cost effectiveness. An M9 will require more parts and service than the M11.

I think it is stupid that the Army issues two completely different pistols when it should have issued one type of pistol. This would have saved millions of your tax dollars, and would have been much better for the troops.

Speak with Pat Rogers, MEU(SOC) member and Gunsite instructor. Talk with any Navy SEAL, including former ST6 member and Gunsite instructor Chris Caracci.

Go here and ask about the Beretta 92F/M9: http://www.tacticalforums.com/

Go here and talk with Chris Caracci:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=770

Go here and speak to Pat Rogers:
http://forcerecon.org/PatRogers.htm

You obviously like the Beretta, you have convinced yourself of it's superiority, and as the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water..."

Ever weigh a Glock 17 ?

Ever try to conceal an M9 under a T-shirt ?

Get a grip, man .

 

[Shake]

Clayton,

Nope, politics played no part in choosing the Beretta 92F over the Sig 226

When does politics not play a part? Did I say they didn't (where was this ever a point of contention?)? You stated that it was comical that the military chose the Beretta over the SIG 226, then proceeded to state that the you can use "the big heavy thing as a boat anchor". I'm still waiting for a response from you as to why the Beretta at 34.4 ounces is a big heavy boat anchor and the SIG 226 at 31.7 is somehow just right. Let me know when you figure that out.

You obviously like the Beretta, you have convinced yourself of it's superiority, and as the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water..."

I do like the Beretta, but you are the only one to mention so far (as I never have) that I am convinced that it is superior. Can you direct me to where I made that statement?

Don't accuse me of making claims that I didn't make, it only detracts from your arguement.

To be fair, I browsed around at the sites you posted and found basically the same thing I find everywhere. That is, a lot of people that have and shoot Berettas that have no problems and a LOT of people that talk about all the problems Berettas suposedly have with locking blocks and slide breakages. Of note, no one has actually seen these happen, just "heard about it". In fact, one of the moderators had this to say:

In truth, if Beretta had simply fixed the problem without accusing SEALs of firing "hot ammo" than we would still be shooting Berretas. The 92F, after all, was a SEAL inspired design (a departure from the euro contols of the 92sb). It rusts pretty badly in saltwater and is large for a 9mm, these days. But overall it is a pretty solid gun. It is difficult to equip with tritium sights, however.

Who brought GLOCKs into this discussion? Yes, I know they weigh about 10 ounces less than a Beretta.

When was the last time the military was worried about concealing a pistol?

The BBs you directed me to are all fine and good, but I want to talk to you because you stated that you had time in the military and insinuated that you had personally witnessed locking block failures. I directly asked you a question concerning what you had witnessed and you spewed a bunch of nonsense about who I should talk to. Since you apparently have seen this happen, I am curious to know what YOU have seen.

I specifically asked how many locking block breakages and slide failures you have personally witnessed, and you haven't answered. Based on that fact I can only conlude that you really didn't witness them and are simply spreading rumors. I'll give you another chance, but any number you give from here on out will be suspect since you have purposely avoided answering my questions to this point.

Avoiding direct questions doesn't strengthen your position at all (its starting to look like your position is based on rumors like everyone elses).

I don't believe that the Beretta is superior to a lot of weapons (they aren't even my favorite). I do believe that they are one of the most reliable pistols on the market and that they do what they were created to do. The longterm durability issues have been overblown by people like yourself who pass on rumors and then when pressed, direct people to other boards to read more rumors.

This is starting to get slightly funny.

Shake

 

[.357SIG]

Durability is not a problem with Berettas. Most of this is internet B.S. passed around as fact. Unless you can show strong evidence saying so (which I've looked for many, many times), the problem cannot be confirmed and is not "fact".

I don't know where you all get your information, but my Beretta's manual states that the gun is rated for all 9mm, including subgun ammo. The only "bad" thing they stated was hot +P+ and subgun ammo can accelerate wear, which is true with all guns.

 

[branrot]

I bought my first gun 7 years ago. I wanted a full-sized hi-capacity 9mm with a safety and an exposed hammer. I did all the research, test fired a lot of guns, narrowed it down to the HK USP and the Beretta, and went home with a stainless Italian Beretta 92. I now have a collection of guns, but still have and love my first.

I find it to be the most reliable auto made. Why? I got a batch of crappy S&B ammo once. It kept jamming in my Walther P99 and in my friend's Glock 17. I now use it solely in my Beretta. And while I've had 2 FTF's in the Beretta, both rounds (same box of Norinco ammo) had perfect firing pin marks in the primer, and it was clear this was an ammo issue. I've never had a stovepipe, and I've never had to stretch the springs in the gun or any of the mags. It will feed pretty much anything.

Yes, it's bigger than most 15 or so round 9mm guns. But it's not meant to be a concealment pistol. Regarding durability, I've probably put a few thousand rounds through mine, and never had a problem. I will say that I had to drift adjust the rear sight, and that the slide release and mag release have slightly discolored, but other than that, absolutely no problems.

 

[blades67]

Posted by Clayton: If you stay away from +P ammo, and don't mind inspecting/replacing parts at a higher rate than with any other comparible service weapon, then get a Beretta. They are reliable, and have such a lousy DA trigger that you are almost assured not to have a dreaded "accidental(negligent) discharge".

Anybody using +P ammo on a regular basis will find that their guns wear at a "higher rate" than similar guns using standard pressure ammo.

You state your opinion about the DA trigger as though it was fact. You are quickly losing credibility on this forum. Please answer direct questions directly and clearly separate your opinions from facts that you can provide supporting evidence for. To do otherwise will lead folks on this forum to not take anything you post with any seriousness.

 

[Foxy]

I'm taking no sides. I'm just posting what I saw on the Stopping Power forums by Jim Higgenbotham:

<snip> I may not be describing the part right but it was the locking lug(?) directly beneath the chamber on the barrel( the thing that moves up and down( boy am I professional ). But, their guns had thousands and thousands of rounds through them by the time this happened, and they believe it was substandard ammo(low bid). Can you explain the problems you've seen? Thanks, John H
------------------------------------------

You have the right part... it is the locking block. Also the firing pins break regularly if you dry fire the gun (which is not recommended by Beretta and not acceptable in the Army's manual of arms of the M-9 - thye have dummy rounds for the purpose).

I am still in the process of training some military folks and here is basically what I have found.

One of my assistants is a military armorer who has 500 M-9s in his care. Back two years ago 135 fo these were down for broken locking blocks or broken firing pins (I have a sandwich bag of several of those for proof). The guns had an average of about 3,000 rounds through them though 100 of them may have had 6,000+. There is an Army bulletin I have seen but cannot locate now that stated the M-9 went an average of about 3,000 rounds before breakage and I have a copy of a page from the "PM" publication which says "no doubt about it your M-9 will break" and details how to go about inspecting it.

Worth noting is that there is a new lockig block design which rounds out the sharp corners which typically break.

Of late we are having malfunctions at the rate of about 1 in every 150-200 rounds... that is just a rough estimate as I am running firing lines of 10-12 positions and we shoot 3 to 5 rounds on each drill. By the time we have gone through a mag (about 150 rounds for the line) at least 1 or 2 pistols will malfunciton. However we have not broken any.

I feel I need to point out that my personal Beretta is very reliable and that we have been able to correct many of the malfunctioning pistols with a little lube (which in my book makes it a maintenance problem) and some have been traced to "limp wristing". In fact I watched one soldier have 90% malfunctions when firing weak hand only. Now he was not a weak fellow and he was in good shape but this gun requires a really firm grip (as does a Glock 17). So actually most of the problems are operator induced... it is just that I don't see this many problems with similar personnel with some other guns.

It is certainly not my intent to disparage the pistol's reputation. It can be very reliable if maintained and operated correctly.

Cordially,
Jim H.

Just what I saw.

I personally liked the M9 I shot at camp. If only the grip were a bit longer, I think it would be perfect

 

[Morgan]

I'm not a fan of such things, but the slickest DAO I ever shot was a Beretta 92 a gentleman let me try after an IDPA match. I believe it was stock, no trigger work, just a few thousand rounds down the spout.

 

[Clayton]

blades67, you and everyone else here on the forums can take me however you like.

This forum is for sharing info and opinions, and that's what I do, just like everyone else. Relax a little .

I posted links where anyone who likes can talk with true firearms experts about the issue.

Military ammuntion is a bit hotter than standard ammo, and so a pistol seeing use by the military should be rated for a continuous diet of +P ammo, at least.

As far as the DA trigger goes, every Beretta M9 or 92F that I've fired(around five or so) sucked, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, when compared to the Sigs that I've tried.

As far as my personal experiences, they are far more limited than those whom I mentioned earlier. I helped out(can you say KP? ) in the armory at both Ft. Sill and at Ft. Benning, and knew the guys that worked on the M9. Locking blocks were regularly replaced, and slides are considered a replacement item as well, which goes against the original contract specs on what is a regular maintenance item. I never stated that I was an expert, that I was a Navy SEAL, or that I was a former employee of Beretta .

Politics do indeed always play a part, but in the XM9 trials, they played more of a part than did choosing the best weapon.

You can take my statements as fact, fiction, whatever. If you think the Beretta 92FS can compare to the Sig 226/228, that's fine and dandy, but there are a lot of credible people that would disagree. These people are out there right now killing terrorists and enemy troops, and have the experience and firsthand knowledge to say why they don't like the Beretta.

The Navy SEALs chose the Sig over the Beretta, not because of the failures, but because Beretta dropped the ball and lied to the military officials, and to congress over the issue, by blaming the shooters instead of the weapons for the slide failures, which were supposidly metallurgically, not design induced. Either way, they lost credibility with Naval Special Warfare troops.

Personally, I prefer the Glock series of handguns over any DA auto.

Shake, you can browse around wherever you please, but I recommend you speak with the individuals that I mentioned, as they are also the one's that "are spreading rumors". Jim Higgenbotham, who was mentioned below, is also an excellent individual to speak to:

www.pistolsmith.com

Lastly, I never stated that the Beretta was a lousy pistol. It just isn't as durable(cost effective) as some people think, namely Beretta. No one, at least not I, ever stated that your Beretta was going to break into pieces, explode, or fail you in combat. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Just don't ignore the facts, and don't shoot the messenger!

As Levar Burton says, "Don't take my word for it.."

 

[Clayton]

On the issue of "credibility":

This was a cheap shot and kinda pissed me off.

I have been posting here for awhile(actually since Aug. '99), and I have dealt with several forum members on a personal basis. I have answered questions outside of the forums, and provided alot of info and gear at my own expense, in order to help others here and on the other forums. As shooters and patriots we are a dwindling and pressured few, and we should all stick together and help each other when we can.

I always post using my real name, and I'm always open for discussion by E-mail. I don't hide behind a fake name, or fake credentials.

When I recommend a product or a service, or state my dislikes about such things, I ALWAYS post links so that others can do their own research, and make up their own minds. I back up my posts with facts.

Only a few members do any of these things.

I may lose my credibility, but at least I had some to begin with.